Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Dude, what the hell is your problem? You think that other people can't tell that it's the same person making all these troll first posts lambasting "Space Nutters" or lampooning the impact on popular technology ascribed to the space race? Your shtick might have been funny many months ago, but now it's just lame -- and hopefully it's just a shtick, not some kind of mental illness that drives you to post like this again and again.

Yes, I'm lampooning the simplified world-view of the space fanbois. Computing, electronics and technology in general are complex subjects, and many, many kinds of people worked on many kinds of technologies for many reasons, even in countries without a manned space program. Imagine that.

The people that absurdly oversimplify history into NASA=technology deserve as much "lambasting" as my keyboard allows (and/.'s stupid 10 posts a day AC limit.)

Knowledge of history isn't a sign of mental illness at all, but an overwhelming urge to make others read your views on history even in discussions of another subject might be. The Slashdot submission did not claim any link between this technology and the space race, and the comments section could not have either since yours was the first post.

So, the other commenter's comparison of you to APK is apt. You are not educating anyone here on history, you are only making others concerned about your sanity.

Biz saw no need for computers at first. Market of six, etc. Govt drove the industry with orders during the 50s and 60s. NASA was like 4% of GDP and represented a big part of the orders. Conservative short-sighted biz would have been content to wait for centuries before responding to a pure market signal for miniturization. So yes, NASA played a large role.

Was quite happy making typewriters. Have you shown evidence that they were working on miniaturizing without government involvement. I think there were many factors involved in the technological advancements of the past 1/2 century or so and the space race (militarization and ICBMs included) did play a large role in that. Would we have gotten there without it? Probably. Would we have gotten there quicker or even as quickly? Probably not.

It's the typical Cambridge (Mass) conceit that if it doesn't happened within 50 miles of Kendall Square (or Harvard Square, depending on your persuasion) it doesn't count, and if it does, you should know about it.

Multics was amazing for its time. Then Honeywell took it on as a commercial product and didn't know how to sell it, or more like their sales people were clueless and didn't want it competing against their own home-grown crappy operating system and hardware. So Multics died.

In the minicomputer era, Prime Computers (a competitor to DEC) built an operating system that they called a "mini" Multics, because it used the same security ring idea, but it wasn't a tenth as good.

Multics implemented a single level store for data access, discarding the clear distinction between files (called segments in Multics) and process memory. The memory of a process consisted solely of segments which were mapped into its address space. To read or write to them, the process simply used normal CPU instructions, and the operating system took care of making sure that all the modifications were saved to disk. In POSIX terminology, it was a

Unix is not Multics and that is really all you need to know about Multics

There are many interesting aspects about Multics that deserve to be heard about if not studied. To name a few: the second-dimension access system or protection rings [wikipedia.org] via "ring brackets" that allowed a 'r', 'w' or 'x' access to a "segment"/file depending on the caller (user or daemon) own "running ring". Thus, a lower (higher privilege) ring program would extend its r&|x access via brackets to allow a user to enter that program (a "gate"). For instance the continuums [multicians.org] (now forums) were usually running in ring 3, while a simple user was in 4 (the core system was in 0). Multics had also convenient and powerful ACL [multicians.org], accesses provided to user/group-project/login-mode. Using long names or short names for a file(segment)... Studying a bit of Multics helps to realize that most of OSes concepts were already invented ~50 years ago...

That is not intelligence; that is just a computer following a scripted set of instructions. There is no self awareness. No ability to haven an original thought / idea. To ask "What if?" or to ask "Why?"

Another/. poster already pointed this out, and one I completely agree with:

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald,

Minsky's problem is that he just writes, doesn't program his ideas, which are a pretty good start: i.e., a society of minds or independent programs with different domains. The programs should communicate with each other and with the user through natural language, instead of arbitrary programmer-defined protocols.

My truename appears in the list of "Multicians". I still have my copy of The Design of the Multics Operating System.

One of the things that Multics did better than anything since was a feature called dynamic linking. In Multics, linking to a DLL was done via a symbolic reference resolved at runtime, rather than a reference to an ordinal (as in Windows). The Multics file system allowed you to have multiple names on the same file. The combination of those two features resulted in the ability to hot-plug